The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an internal directive this week that instructs government lawyers to seek the early dismissal of certain asylum applications before applicants can present their testimony before a judge.
The measure, confirmed by an internal guide first cited by Fox News, represents an escalation in the immigration policy of the Trump administration and directly impacts thousands of Cuban, Venezuelan, and Central American families with pending cases.
What does the new guideline entail?
The order applies to the attorneys of the Principal Legal Advisor's Office of ICE (OPLA), who represent the DHS in immigration courts.
These lawyers must file motions to "allow"—to dismiss in advance—those requests they deem legally insufficient by merely reviewing the file, without waiting for the full hearing.
In practical terms, the government is asking the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that even if the reported facts were completely true, they do not meet the legal minimum threshold for obtaining asylum.
A crucial point: ICE does not have the authority to cancel a case on its own.
As explained by immigration attorney Ezequiel Hernández in an analysis for Univision, "the judge has the authority to dismiss the case before the hearing takes place, and what this means is that you do not attend your hearing, there is no hearing at all, only a ruling."
What changes compared to what existed before?
This guideline has direct antecedents.
In April 2025, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) had already published a policy authorizing judges to dismiss deficient applications without holding a hearing.
Months later, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reinforced that framework with the precedential ruling Matter of H-A-A-V-.
The new directive from the DHS represents the third step: it not only authorizes judges to overlook, but also actively instructs government lawyers to seek these dismissals systematically.
Hernández summarized it this way: "Now President Trump has given the Department of Justice, and the ICE prosecutors, a new tool to prepare a motion asking the immigration judge not to hear the case because they believe it does not merit or does not meet the minimum requirements for an asylum case."
Which cases are at greater risk?
The directive targets "insufficient" applications, meaning those that do not appear to meet the minimum legal requirements at first glance.
To obtain asylum in the United States, it is not enough to demonstrate economic hardship or widespread insecurity.
The applicant must prove past persecution or a well-founded fear of future persecution related to one of the five legally protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.
The cases with the highest risk may be those where it is not clearly demonstrated that there was persecution, that a legally protected reason exists, or that the persecution occurred specifically because of that reason.
This is particularly concerning for the Cuban community with pending defensive asylum cases, as leaving the island due to the economic crisis or opposing the political system does not guarantee that the application meets the legal requirements.
The difference will be in how the I-589 form was drafted, especially in applications submitted without legal representation.
The Trump administration justifies the measure by arguing that there is "a lot of fraud" in the system and that most of the affected cases correspond to applications submitted during the Biden administration.
A context of broader migratory offensive
This directive comes amidst a series of measures that have tightened access to asylum.
At the end of July, the DHS published a provisional rule that allows USCIS to refer certain affirmative asylum applications directly to court without a prior interview, a measure that could impact over a million pending cases.
For Cubans, the situation is particularly precarious: ICE increased the detentions of Cuban migrants by 463% between October 2025 and April 2026, and many with a supervision order (Form I-220A) have been sent directly to court without undergoing an asylum interview.
Immigration experts recommend that those with pending cases consult immediately with a trusted lawyer to assess the strength of their application before an early dismissal motion jeopardizes their stay in the United States.
Esta nueva directriz del DHS podría afectar miles de casos pendientes. Sigue de cerca todos los cambios en políticas migratorias en nuestra sección de
Related videos:
Filed under: